Author list

    Should Andy Marble (LVL post-doc in Tucson) be included?
    
--Since he's basically a full-fledged team member now, I'll add his name and ask if he wants to be included.

1. Introduction

2nd para 

     11 Mpc; m_B < -> 11 Mpc, with m_B <
     
--This section has been improved.

3rd para

    perhaps adding a reference to the phrase "expected duration of starburst episodes"  -> From theoretical arguments, starburst durations of ~100 Myr are favored, so I think that if one expects shorter durations, then one is taking at face value the observational results which I believe to be flawed.
    
--This section has been rewritten, and the offending statement has been removed!

4th para

   infrared emission, dust content, and global activity  (add comma)
   
--Thanks

2. The Sample

2nd para

   Several of the galaxies in the ANGST sample are dSphs.  These do not show up in the morphological classification.
   
--This has been fixed (I didn't realize that T=-3 meant dSph in our sample data files).

   "SINGS has larger fractions of non-spiral morphologies" seems contradictory to a large fraction of spirals.  less irregulars, more S0's, more ellipticals
   
--You are correct, and this has been fixed.  Again, I was not binning the RC3 T-types correctly!

4.1 2Mass Photo

1st para

   Perhaps quoting the total number detected in H would be helpful.
   
--I've added a figure that includes the Kirby et al. data (thus the reader can see how many galaxies overlap between LVL and Kirby et al.).

4.2 

last para

  Somewhat different from the situation for IRAC imaging ->
  In contrast to the IRAC aperture corrections,
  
--Thanks

  [1.01, 1.01, 1.03,] -> [1.01, 1.01, 1.03]
  
--Thanks

5.1 Detection Rate

  For figures 2 and 3, I would really like to see total numbers and detection rate as a function of absolute magnitude.  Apparent B magnitude in increasing to the left in Figure 2 and increasing to the right in figure 3.  
  
--I've added that to the figure.  I originally only went with apparent magnitude since that was one of the sample selection parameters, and the figure nicely shows how our cut at m_B=15.5 mag was effective for ensuring a high MIPS detection rate.

5.2

1st para

  I guess there will be an on-line version of figure 4 with all of the SEDs?
  
--For the first review I didn't put them all in for the sake of compactness.  I've now added all the panels, and I intend to publish them all in the Journal.

5.3 IR colors

  Figure 5 

  In the caption, the work "Top:" should be removed

--Thanks

  I think that the order of the figures might be altered to aid in comparison.  If the two plots with 8um/TIR were across from each other, and the two plots with 160/TIR and 70/TIR were across from each other, then they would have matching y-axis ranges.  So the order from top left to bottom right would be top two figures same, then 8um/TIR and 8umdust/TIR and then 70/TIR and 160/TIR.
  
--Done

  In the figure caption you could state that the range of 1.6 dex is the same for all panels; otherwise one expects that same labels on each y-axis.
  
--Done

5.4 

last para

   In Figure 7, I don't understand the rhs label.  Isn't it just continuous star formation and not at a given SFR (it shouldn't matter - right?).
   
--Thanks for catching that.  It's been fixed.

   I think that the description given in the last paragraph is too terse to sort out exactly what you have done here.

--You weren't the only one to suggest this.  I've re-written this section, and included a statement that the modeled star formation durations are overestimated if the actual star formation is bursty or a combination of a burst and steady-state.